I won a Charlie Award....without entering the competition...

Wow, that's great, one of my Antarctica images won a Charlie Award in the
US!

But wait...what's this? I never entered this competition. The fancy gala
diner was three
weeks ago. And nobody told me?!

An interesting story, to put it mildly. Read all about it he
http://www.thijsheslenfeld.com/text.php?catId=15776


T. Heslenfeld
travel photographer
www.thijsheslenfeld.com

T. Heslenfeld wrote:
Wow, that's great, one of my Antarctica images won a Charlie Award in the
US!

But wait...what's this? I never entered this competition. The fancy gala
diner was three
weeks ago. And nobody told me?!

An interesting story, to put it mildly. Read all about it he
http://www.thijsheslenfeld.com/text.php?catId=15776


So what's the problem?
It seems like the "FMA" accepts entries only from magazines, and you're
not a magazine, you're a photographer who sold rights to publish the
photo in their magazine.
The magazine won a prize, using your photo. You are listed on the
credits. It cost then $45 to enter it, and there's no prize money (?).
So the magazine won a photo in a "single photo" category. Surely not
the first time that a magazine won a prize due to contribution from a
freelancer.
The FMA site doesn't even publish a copy of your photo, which they
probably could do if they wanted, under "fair use".
The magazine still can't sell prints of your photo.
Meh - bad form by the magazine, but OTOH it probably presents more
opportunities to you than quantifiable "losses".
Tee-shirts with your photo, or travel agents using it, and get them to
pay, or sue their arses.
Until then, chill out. It's still your photo, and far worse things happen.

"Me" wrote in message ...
T. Heslenfeld wrote:
Wow, that's great, one of my Antarctica images won a Charlie Award in the
US!

But wait...what's this? I never entered this competition. The fancy gala
diner was three
weeks ago. And nobody told me?!

An interesting story, to put it mildly. Read all about it he
http://www.thijsheslenfeld.com/text.php?catId=15776


So what's the problem?

The magazine didn't have the courtesy to either inform the OP that they'd
entered his work in a competeion, or even worse inform him that his work
had actually won that competition. He only found out by accident.

That's the problem.

What seems to have escaped your notice is that all all these "possible benefits"
which you're so happy to crow about -

"it probably presents more opportunities to you than quantifiable "losses".
Tee-shirts with your photo, or travel agents using it, and get them to
pay, or sue their arses.

could have been of no possible benefit to the OP, had he not discovered
he'd won this prize totally by accident. Because to repeat - the magazine
didn't even have to courtesy to inform him that he'd won.

Get the picture ?


michael adams

....

It seems like the "FMA" accepts entries only from magazines, and you're
not a magazine, you're a photographer who sold rights to publish the
photo in their magazine.
The magazine won a prize, using your photo. You are listed on the
credits. It cost then $45 to enter it, and there's no prize money (?).
So the magazine won a photo in a "single photo" category. Surely not
the first time that a magazine won a prize due to contribution from a
freelancer.
The FMA site doesn't even publish a copy of your photo, which they
probably could do if they wanted, under "fair use".
The magazine still can't sell prints of your photo.
Meh - bad form by the magazine, but OTOH it probably presents more
opportunities to you than quantifiable "losses".
Tee-shirts with your photo, or travel agents using it, and get them to
pay, or sue their arses.
Until then, chill out. It's still your photo, and far worse things happen.

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 12:31:46 +0100, Boris wrote:

So what's the problem?

The magazine didn't have the courtesy to either inform the OP that
they'd entered his work in a competeion, or even worse inform him that
his work had actually won that competition. He only found out by
accident.

That's the problem.

What seems to have escaped your notice is that all all these "possible
benefits" which you're so happy to crow about -

"it probably presents more opportunities to you than quantifiable
"losses". Tee-shirts with your photo, or travel agents using it, and get
them to pay, or sue their arses.

could have been of no possible benefit to the OP, had he not discovered
he'd won this prize totally by accident.

He didn't win any prize. The magazine did.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

"Robert Spanjaard" wrote in message
bel.net...
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 12:31:46 +0100, Boris wrote:

So what's the problem?

The magazine didn't have the courtesy to either inform the OP that
they'd entered his work in a competeion, or even worse inform him that
his work had actually won that competition. He only found out by
accident.

That's the problem.

What seems to have escaped your notice is that all all these "possible
benefits" which you're so happy to crow about -

"it probably presents more opportunities to you than quantifiable
"losses". Tee-shirts with your photo, or travel agents using it, and get
them to pay, or sue their arses.

could have been of no possible benefit to the OP, had he not discovered
he'd won this prize totally by accident.

He didn't win any prize. The magazine did.

The prize was awarded for -

" the 'Best Single, Original Color Photo - "

As taken by the OP. If the OP had been complimented on winning the prize
and possibly sounded out for a commision, in a situation where he didn't even
know he'd won it, then he could possibly have been left looking foolish. Or
as suffering from mental bewiderment.

The "Tee shirt" suggestion was only left in to show up the seeming level of "expertise"
evident in some of the responses on this NG.

Maybe you should be posting in a magazines production newsgroup. This newsgroup is
about photography and the people who practise it.

Anyway it's nice to see some of pretend pros on this NG showing themselves in their
true colours and siding with a bunch of late paying scumbags against a published
professional photographer.

You simply couldn't make it up



michael adams

...








--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:13:41 +0100, Boris wrote:

He didn't win any prize. The magazine did.

The prize was awarded for -

" the 'Best Single, Original Color Photo - "

And awarded to the magazine that published it. It's a publishing award,
regardless of who provided the content.

As taken by the OP. If the OP had been complimented on winning the
prize and possibly sounded out for a commision, in a situation where he
didn't even know he'd won it,

He didn't win it, the magazine did.

Maybe you should be posting in a magazines production newsgroup. This
newsgroup is about photography and the people who practise it.

I'm sorry, I thought Heslenfeld was a practising photographer.

Anyway it's nice to see some of pretend pros on this NG showing
themselves in their true colours and siding with a bunch of late paying
scumbags against a published professional photographer.

Simply stating the truth doesn't mean I'm siding with anyone, and I don't
pretend to be a pro.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

Boris wrote:


Anyway it's nice to see some of pretend pros on this NG showing themselves in their
true colours and siding with a bunch of late paying scumbags against a published
professional photographer.

Nice of you to snip out my comment:
"Meh - bad form by the magazine"
Which sums it up, and refutes the nonsense you write above.

"Me" wrote in message ...
Nice of you to snip out my comment:


"Meh - bad form by the magazine"

You weren't even aware of the nature of the OP's fully justified
and specific complaint against the magazine. Which was that
they didn't even have the courtesy to inform him. Either that
they'd entered his work in a competion, or that his work
had won it.

Anything else they may or may not have done pales into
insignificance when compared with sheer downright ignorance
and bad manners of their behaviour in that regard.

In other words, the gist of his entire post went straight over
the top of your head. So that your remark about "bad form" is totally
meaningless as you didn't have the faintest idea of what he was complaining
of in the first place. And was about on a par with your "helpful" suggestion
that he should get some tee-shirts printed up. Presumably so as to impress
the eskimos and polar bears on his next visit to the icy wastes.

Which sums it up, and refutes the nonsense you write above.

To sum anything up, you have to be aware of what what's being complained
of in the first place. You clearly didn't. And quite possibly still
don't, by the looks of things.


michael adams

....

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:43:39 +0100, "Boris" wrote:
:
: "Me" wrote in message ...
: Nice of you to snip out my comment:
:
: "Meh - bad form by the magazine"
:
: You weren't even aware of the nature of the OP's fully justified
: and specific complaint against the magazine. Which was that
: they didn't even have the courtesy to inform him. Either that
: they'd entered his work in a competion, or that his work
: had won it.
:
: Anything else they may or may not have done pales into
: insignificance when compared with sheer downright ignorance
: and bad manners of their behaviour in that regard.
:
: In other words, the gist of his entire post went straight over
: the top of your head. So that your remark about "bad form" is
: totally meaningless as you didn't have the faintest idea of what
: he was complaining of in the first place. And was about on a par
: with your "helpful" suggestion that he should get some tee-shirts
: printed up. Presumably so as to impress the eskimos and polar
: bears on his next visit to the icy wastes.
:
: Which sums it up, and refutes the nonsense you write above.
:
: To sum anything up, you have to be aware of what what's being
: complained of in the first place. You clearly didn't. And quite
: possibly still don't, by the looks of things.

You think there are Eskimos and polar bears in Antarctica, yet you have the
temerity to ridicule someone else's understanding of the OP's original
complaint? guffaw!!

Bob

Boris wrote:
"Me" wrote in message ...
Nice of you to snip out my comment:


"Meh - bad form by the magazine"

You weren't even aware of the nature of the OP's fully justified
and specific complaint against the magazine.

Rubbish...
Which was that
they didn't even have the courtesy to inform him. Either that
they'd entered his work in a competion, or that his work
had won it.
Much worse things routinely happen wrt copyright abuse and photos, and
they involve significant (or potential) financial loss rather then "hurt
feelings". The OP is being precious.

Bye.